Call for action on Syria

The refugee crisis has been one of the stories of the year. People have been fleeing steadily from the conflicts in
Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and from ongoing instability in sub-Saharan Africa. With an escalation in the conflict, and Britain's role
in the conflict, in Syria, we will most likely see many more of those seeking safety making
their way towards Europe.

In many ways, the crisis does not change much about the day-to-day work of asylum lawyers, but it is impossible - or at least unwise - to ignore the context in which we are working. The current context has led many working in the field, and in law more generally, to consider what, if anything, we can do beyond representing those who reach these shores.

Human impact

When thinking of the refugee crisis, it is not difficult for asylum lawyers, and those working
in adjacent fields, to put a human face to the headlines. You can think of numerous examples
to illustrate the real human impact that the lack
of action is having.

Part of the job of an asylum lawyer consists of enquiring about a client's journey to the UK. This is something the Home Office routinely question applicants on - indeed, it forms half of the initial interview conducted with all asylum seekers.

In making these enquiries this year, the answers I have heard include an account of seven months in detention in Greece from a 16-year-old Somali girl; a story of sleeping under a sheet in the jungle of Calais before clinging to the outside of a lorry from two young Eritreans; and descriptions of fleeing on foot across the border to Turkey from a Syrian mother and son.

Syrian clients have recounted numerous attempts to apply for visas to join family in the UK. One client had brothers who had lived in the UK since the 1980s and were British citizens but were unable to bring her or her son to join them. There are strict penalties for those travelling without proper documentation, which can be enforced against the carrier as well as the passenger, and as such it is difficult to obtain a plane ticket without a visa, so she then set off on foot towards Turkey with her son.

They described finding the refugee camps in Turkey full and the private landlords in Istanbul unwilling - or unable - to rent to Syrians. They travelled on to Greece but were warned to keep going to avoid being detained.

By this time, her brothers had grown desperate and applied for a visit visa for her, which allowed her to board a plane and fly to the UK. They had been unable to get a visa for her son so he made the journey by lorry. He was locked in the lorry somewhere in Greece and kept inside until he reached the UK. The driver, he said, warned him not to get out or he would be fingerprinted and 'sent home'. Terrified, he did not emerge for days. This trip cost the family their life savings.

Robust response

These accounts are far from isolated events but serve to bring home the individual reality behind the multitude of headlines. They suggest that the need for a more robust and humane response to the refugee crisis is urgent and imperative, and highlight the lacuna in the UK's policies, which the Lawyers' Refugee Initiative urges parliament to remedy.

Many reading this may already be aware of the Initiative. The legal community's call for action has been subscribed to by more than 300 senior legal figures, including retired judges, Queen's Counsel, barristers, solicitors, and law professors, urging the UK to do more to assist refugees. Representatives of this group attended a refugee policy meeting at parliament on 15 December 2015.

The Initiative advocates the adoption of four principles to guide the UK response to the crisis.

First, it urges the UK to take a fair and proportionate share of refugees – not only those still outside the EU but also those already within the EU.

Second, it proposes that safe legal routes are established to allow people to avoid the dangerous routes run by traffickers. A key proposal is the introduction of visas for the purpose of seeking asylum upon arrival. At present, it is extremely difficult to reach the UK in a legal manner as a refugee.

The visa with the quickest processing time is a visit visa, which requires the individual to promise they intend to return home after a maximum of six months. Not only would it be virtually impossible for someone to persuade an entry clearance officer (those processing overseas entry requests) that they really did intend to return to Syria or Iraq, but any attempt to do so would require them to lie, thereby rendering the visa invalid and leaving the individual open to prosecution for illegal entry and obtaining a visa by deception. The alternative is to seek to enter the country without papers – in practice, on the back of a lorry or with an agent who provides false papers.

The resettlement schemes in place are extremely limited and conditions in refugee camps often dire. There is already a family reunion policy in place, which allows members of a refugee’s immediate family to be reunited with them in the UK, but it does not extend to the parents of the refugee (whether the refugee in question is a child or adult themselves) or to siblings or grandparents. Although it is possible to bring other relatives, this is an even lengthier process than family reunion and it is at the discretion of the Home Office.

The human cost of the lack of safe routes to claim asylum is dear. The introduction of a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum would offer a legal route for those in danger. It would offer a real alternative rather than a difficult choice between obtaining a visa by deception (but thereby being able to fly or otherwise enter the UK without the need for an agent) and placing oneself in the hands of agents who smuggle people into the UK on lorries or with false papers.

Beyond the immediate dangers, these currently available methods of entry can have far-reaching consequences. There is a legal requirement for the secretary of state to consider certain ‘behaviours’ of the asylum seeker when deciding if the applicant is to be given the benefit of the doubt concerning any elements of their claim for which they do not have proof. These behaviours include whether deception has been used and if the applicant has entered the UK illegally.

The initial act of entry has the potential to impact on the initial success of the claim. Later, if the asylum seeker is recognised as a refugee and then down the line wishes to apply to become British, it may cause problems when seeking to be naturalised.

Safe legal routes

The Initiative's third proposal calls for safe and legal routes for refugees within Europe. Certain European countries have had a staggeringly high number of arrivals, with which they have been unable to cope. In recognition of this, the Initiative seeks, among other proposals, the suspension of the Dublin system. The Dublin treaties introduced the 'first kick of the can' procedure, where individuals must claim in the first 'safe' country they set foot in. If they fail to
do so and travel on to reach another European country, they can be returned to that first country.

In the European countries unable to cope with new arrivals, there is nothing left for those already recognised as refugees. Among those arriving from Italy and Greece are those who have refugee status but nowhere to sleep, nothing to eat, and no work to be able to secure these necessities.
In response to this, it is proposed that an intra-Europe resettlement process is introduced to allow those in destitute conditions to relocate
to other European countries.

Finally, the proposals seek to remind us all that in dealing with the refugee crisis, we need fair and thorough procedures for the processing of asylum claims. This is of particular importance after jubilation at the demise of the detained fast-track (DFT) process proved to be short lived. Following the suspension of the processing of asylum claims in the DFT, a new process known as detained asylum casework has begun. On the ground, this appears to vary little from the DFT, except that the safeguards - such as a formal process for seeking removal of certain types of claims from the detention process - no longer operate.

If anything, it seems that immigration policy and law is growing ever more restrictive, and as such it becomes increasingly unable to respond humanely to the arrival of refugees.

From the point of view of one asylum lawyer - and the 354 signatories - there is a clear and urgent need for parliament to engage with the proposals of the Lawyers' Refugee Initiative.

Further information can be found at www.lawyersrefugeeinitiative.org. SJ

Rachel Lau is a trainee solicitor and senior caseworker at Wilsons. She has a PhD in asylum law